Q: Why does this page refer to The Flood as a "myth"?
A: The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false".
Q: Why doesn't this page focus more on the creationist point of view?
A: On topics of theology and mythology, Wikipedia is largely focused on what can be demonstrated based on a consensus of peer-reviewed academic papers. As this article notes, many mainstream scholars dispute that The Flood actually occurred. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also believe in "not giv[ing] minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects," where minority views refers to views found in a minority of reliable sources.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
In Genesis 8:21, I read: "and the Lord said in his heart ... neither will I again smite every thing living" (emphasis added). In original Hebrew, I read: "va-yomer Yehova el-libo," i.e. "Jehovah said to his heart." I see no promise and no "covenant with Noah." God DECIDED to never destroy life again. This is different from promising -- decisions are in no way binding and can be reversed unilaterally. I suggest editing the article accordingly:
1. "God made a covenant with Noah that man would be allowed to eat every living thing but not its blood, and God decided to never again destroy all life."
The purpose of this article, as its name conveys, is to represent the narrative in the Book of Genesis accurately. I cited that very narrative, in the original language and in an English translation. The original source supersedes any "scholarly perspective" or interpretation. The table already cites the source (Genesis 8:21). The same source can be cited elsewhere if necessary. DenisProf (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, since the Bible can be interpreted in thousands of ways. As Bart Ehrman argued, if you seek to find the Trinity in Genesis chapter 1, you will find it there. But that says more about you than about the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referring me to the policy. As long as the policy is in place, you are correct that, as sources, scholarly texts trump scriptural texts. However, it strikes me as bad policy that, for summarizing scriptural narratives, any secondary sources should be privileged over the original. My suggestion is to switch from interpretation to the uninterpreted original (not to offer a self-researched interpretation.) This must be a switch toward a more reliable source. DenisProf (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DenisProf Policy allows us to quote the Bible when appropriate, but then you may have an argument about which translation to quote. The trouble with quoting Hebrew and Greek texts is that people with no credentials will argue about what it means, and the few of us who have actually studied those languages can't pull rank because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So you do need a respected scholar to have already said the thing you want to put in here. But that shouldn't be difficult, as there are great scholarly commentaries. Try the International Critical Commentary on Genesis by Skinner, or the SCM one by von Rad, and you will find reliable explanations verse by verse. If what you are saying is right, you will find your source there. Doric Loon (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew text does not speak of a global flood, it speaks of "the ground" (הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה)(6:7) and "the land" (הָאָֽרֶץ)(6:13,17; 7:3,4,10). In the context, the most that can be said is that this indicates the world known to Noah, which most likely would have been confined to the Mesopotamian basin.
All my reference works are in storage, so I can't provide citations as I would like, but I suggest that the section be rewritten because "global" is an inference, not something drawn from the text. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very strongly believed. In popular culture, every mention of Noah's flood seems to automatically include the word "global". Logically it would obviously have only been the world known to Noah, but it's grown and is now part of dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we value your insight, this would currently be an example of original research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia mainspace. If you find reliable sourcing, it would be worth mentioning as one of many scholarly perspectives on the text. TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it should be global, or else why would Noah bring birds? It also says it destroyed "all flesh", it covered the "highest mountains" and the sheer size of the Ark is enough to tell us that it's likely it's referring to a global flood. That's what I think, but it could be different. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is. It just says not to give the idea undue weight, not anything about the word "pseudoscientific". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is controversial. Apparently you don't think so, but it's mentioned up there at the top of the page. I really don't see how this is tendentious editing, as the main ideas are still the same. My editing had to do with the RULES already. You haven't explained how the rules have anything to do with the word "pseudoscientific" itself. The RULES are barely there with the original paragraph. I'm just making it so it FOLLOWS THE RULES MORE. As in ENFORCING THE RULES. (did you even read all the text before?) I don't see how this is "tendentious editing", the original paragraph was biased in the first place, and I just kept the IDEAS the same. The IDEAS are important. I would call this edit "fixing vocabulary". 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even answered half of my questions. Stop avoiding them.
I'm not soapboxing. I LITERALLY just removed the word "pseudoscience". I'm not promoting Creationism in any way. There are also NO CITATIONS there. What I am doing is allowed, and you editing it back is against the rules. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Wikipedian for 21 years and 10 months. If I wouldn't know what I speak about, then nobody would.
Christianity is the biggest religion in the world? And to offend the biggest religion in the world is pretty problematic... 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about that, because the germane rule is WP:CENSOR: we don't pander to piety, but render mainstream academic learning, even if it offends religious believers. Just think about it: any piece of information could probably offend someone who disagrees with it, and Wikipedia would be long dead if we would refrain from offending someone. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight." Hmmm...I don't see how all majority and significant-minority positions are included then. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority means: the majority of the scientific community; the majority of mainstream Bible scholars. Even if you would construe it to mean the majority of Christians, the majority of Christians would consider themselves in the camp of liberal Christianity if they would understand the difference between fundamentalism and modernism. Liberal Christians don't get offended by mainstream academic learning. So, again, our article does not offend Christianity as a whole, just a minority of Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a fruitless argument. If you did not get the point by now, you will never get it. I will not reply further. Just mind that what admins deem to be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia always has precedence over what you think would be the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. And they don't listen to WP:Wikilawyering. WP:NOTDUMB. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing doesn't have any quotes, citations, doesn't answer questions, etc. Wikipedia isn't about what anyone thinks. Also, you're not an administrator. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with dsJjj on this one. Leave if you want. Also I think that Christians can be scientists too, like people like Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, etc. 75.164.23.34 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion does not matter; mine also doesn't. What matters is that Wikipedia renders mainstream scientific information and mainstream academic learning. You cannot change this, trying is futile. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably look at this source: [1] Also, "pseudoscience" is incorrect. Also, the scientific method was CREATED by Christians. Also, I'll talk to an ACTUAL ADMIN about this. Also, most articles ANYWHERE regarding Creationism are primary sources and don't have citation. Also, it's not neutral. Also, as I keep reminding you, it's the removal of an unimportant word. It still sounds the same, but less wordy. It also sounds more neutral, as the RULES say. 𝐝𝐬𝐉𝐣𝐣 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actual admin here: stop. And please don't be rude to our volunteers. There is so much wrong in that last series of statements I am not even going to start. You can start by listening to tgeorgescu instead of picking a fight--that's what Facebook is for. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus isn't God, just as there can be no scientific evidence that Jesus is God. Science has nothing to say about that, not even about whether God exists. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God or gods. But there are mountains of scientific evidence against creationism and flood geology. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis) is a Hebrew flood myth.", as for many, the Genesis flood is not a myth. This applies to all statements regarding the Genesis "myth" as a myth. SHAFdfdsoi (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information."
Not done: see faq Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)